Tuesday 15th June 2004

Speed Cameras Work say UCL

New report gives clean bill of health to robocops

---

A study carried out by the University College London for the Goverment is said to conclude that speed cameras are effective in saving lives on our roads.

Analysing a three year period, the study claims that there is a 33% reduction in injuries at camera sites compared with pre-accident statistics. A conclusion being heralded elsewhere in the media is that 100 lives are being saved each year by cameras.

Figures from individual camera partnerships are not in the public domain so overall the only figures to go on are Department for Transport stats for the last few years. Between 1998 and 2002 the number of deaths on our roads has remained static (3,421 vs 3,431 in 2002) despite the prosecution of hundreds of thousands of motorists and millions of pounds of fines being paid.

If deaths really are down at camera sites then we have a serious problem on the rest of our roads...

The Association of British Drivers reacted with dismay to the news. "Camera partnerships, local authorities and the Highways Agency all place every possible obstruction in the path of those who want to examine accident reports for themselves. They just won't release the data on which their claims for speed cameras are based, allowing them to make unsubstantiated claims and making those wanting to get to the truth about road safety work in the dark ", stated spokesman Mark McArthur-Christie.

The report was based on data from 24 of the 42 police forces taking part in the hypothecation scheme in which money is kept to keep camera partnerships self-sufficient.

Success rates vary dramatically according to the data presented to the researchers. The estimated reductions in deaths and serous injuries at camera sites: 

• North Wales 68%
• Lancashire: 58%
• Norfolk: 56%
• Cambridgeshire: 55%
• Northamptonshire: 46%
• Norfolk: 56%
• Thames Valley: 43%
• Warwickshire: 42%
• Strathclyde: 34%
• Nottingham (City): 33%
• Staffordshire: 30%
• Lincolnshire: 18%
• Derbyshire: 17%

Curiously despite Essex being famous for its high number of prosecutions of speeding motorists there was insufficient data for estimates to be produced for the county!

Intrigued by the report we picked the data for Thames Valley region. In 1998, 116 people were killed or seriously injured. In the three years since, an average of 113 were killed or seriously injured. In the first year of cameras the figure actually rose, so it still seems like cherry picking of statistics is going on as claiming a 43% reduction in KSI's is very misleading.

The three year report and data on individual camera sites is apparently available at www.dft.gov.uk . If you've got ten minutes pick your region and tell us what you find.

Link : Regional data

[sook]

But statistics can be misleading. If only 1 person was killed or injured at a camera site one year, and then none the next, then the reduction is 100%.

On the other hand, if 100 people were killed/injured one year and 99 the next, the reduction is only 1%, even though the actual reduction in deaths/injuries is the same.

You could therefore get very significant reductions, especially if you place cameras where there were few/no accidents in the first place, but where they will catch lots of motorists....

[zumbruk]

There is one word to describe this "study", the figures it contains and the spin being put on it in the media; lies.

[odysseyireland]

The three year report is available here:
www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/downloadable/dft_rdsafety_029194.pdf

[PetrolTed]

Not sure that's the new one. The new one is supposed to contain data on individual camera sites.

[cdp]

I noticed in the BBC news reports they stated the reduction was "equivalent to 100 lives saved per year". I am quite sure the word equivalent is significant here, or it just me being suspicious?

[tuscan_thunder]

this would be laughable if it wasn't so scary.

firstly the figures are for Killed and Seriously Injured. Big difference between being seriously injured (whatever that is) and being dead.

100 lives saved?? yeah, yeah whatever. and if that is true, out of 3 million speeding tickets issued, that's not exactly a roaring success is it?

::insert usual desperate rant to try to get common sense into government here::

also be interesting to see the figures for Durham. bet they're better than national

[odysseyireland]

Ted...that link is the current full report...its dated June 2004 on the front page. The individual site data is available in separate Excel spreadsheets under each region, then each partnership from here:

www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_control/documents/contentservertemplate/dft_index.hcst?n=10510&l=2

>> Edited by odysseyireland on Tuesday 15th June 10:42

[sook]

DFT report said:

The majority of the public support the use of safety cameras for targeted enforcement All partnerships have put considerable effort into communicating the dangers of excess speed and the rationale for the introduction of safety cameras. Partnerships were encouraged to commission independent surveys to monitor public attitudes towards safety cameras. These showed that the majority of the public supported a targeted approach to speed enforcement. The level of public support for the use of cameras has been consistently high with 79% of people questioned agreeing with the statement that ‘the use of safety cameras should be supported as a method of reducing casualties’. From the public attitude surveys there was strong evidence that there was overall positive support for the use of cameras and this stemmed from the belief that the cameras were in place to save lives – 68% of people surveyed agreed that the primary use of cameras was to save lives. Despite a slight reduction in the level of support for safety cameras in comparison to both the original research by Brunel University and the previous two-year report, overall support for safety cameras remained positive. Independent research validated this with a poll of polls, released in November 2003 by Transport 2000, which demonstrated ongoing support for safety cameras – an average of six national surveys showed that support for the use of cameras averaged 74%.

[PetrolTed]

Ah, thanks.

So, taking one sample. Thames Valley.

www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_029184.hcsp

Before (1998) = 116 KSI
Average of 2000-2003 since = 113 KSI

Yet the Govt is claiming a 43% reduction in KSI in Thames Valley!!!?

AM I MISSING SOMETHING?

[PetrolTed]

Perhaps they're taking the final year's figures of 89 versus 1998's of 116. Strange that in 2000 it went up to 128.

It's all cherry picked statistics!

[JMGS4]

So UCL are taking the governments falsified figures and giving them the "results" they wanted???? How much money is being paid to keep these useless w*nkers of socialist lying theiving bureaucrats in work by noolabia scumbags???? The so-called KSI figures are all falsified, break a finger and these eejits call it a serious injury!!???!! FFS!!!
This, along with all of bLIARS statistics aren't worth the loo paper they're printed on......

[kurgis]

The report is interesting to say the least...

page 48, Chart 7.

Public support is eroding by 8% per survey. There are massive regional variations. 10 of the 17 authorities have a higher average of people who think they have too many speed cameras.

What happened to our society protecting the rights of significant minorities? In this case a rather large proportion of the population who DONT agree with "Safety" cameras?

If the cameras had saved 100 lives - why did we have this:

Fatalities from RAGB:

2000: 3409
2001: 3450
2002: 3431

Are they trying to say we'd of had 100 MORE casualties without them??

Have to sit down and read it in depth before I post anymore..

[PetrolTed]

I'd urge PHers to have a look at the data for their local regions and tell us what you find.

www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_control/documents/contentservertemplate/dft_index.hcst?n=10510&l=2

I suspect serious cherry picking of data has gone on here to fool the public at large.

[sook]

Well apparently the camera site at the end of my road in Oxford had 3 or 4 KSI before the camera was installed. Funny that I've lived there all my life and don't remember any of these accidents. If there were any accidents there, it would likely involve a pedestrian using the crossing island just before the camera, or at the junction again just before the camera. How does this help? They have the accident before they even see the camera!

[Richard C]

UCL are famous for lies and spin in the guise of science.

Their so-called statisticians were responsible for the totally corrupt advice given to the MAFF (later DEFRA) during the 2001 foot and mouth epidemic. This conflicted with the advice from internationally renowned FMD experts and cost the counmtry directly 7billion and indirectly 22 billion.

I would not accept a word that came out of that place.

[Tafia]

tuscan_thunder said:

this would be laughable if it wasn't so scary. firstly the figures are for Killed and Seriously Injured. Big difference between being seriously injured (whatever that is) and being dead.

KSI defined

From www.scotland.gov.uk/stats/bulletins/00169-02.asp

9. Sources and definitions

9.1 The sources of the data

The statistics in this bulletin were compiled from returns made by police forces, which cover all accidents in which a vehicle is involved that occur
on roads (including footways) and result in personal injury, if they become known to the police.

The vehicle need not be moving, and need not be in
collision - for example, the returns include accidents involving people alighting from buses. "Damage only" accidents are not included in this
definition.

9.2 The definition of "severity"

For the purposes of the Road Accidents statistical returns: a fatal injury
is one which causes death less than 30 days after the accident; a fatal accident is an accident in which at least one person is fatally
injured;

a serious injury is one which does not cause death less than 30 days after
the accident, and which is in one (or more) of the following categories:

(a) an injury for which a person is detained in hospital as an in-patient

or (b) any of the following injuries (whether or not the person is detained in hospital): fractures, concussion, internal injuries, crushings, severe
cuts and lacerations, severe general shock requiring treatment or (c) any injury causing death 30 or more days after the accident;
a serious accident is one in which at least one person is seriously injured, but no-one suffers a fatal injury;

a "slight" injury is any injury which is neither "fatal" nor "serious" -
for example, a sprain, bruise or cut which is not judged to be severe, or
slight shock requiring roadside attention;

a "slight" accident is one in which at least one person suffers "slight"
injuries, but no-one is seriously injured, or fatally injured;

Over the years, improvements in vehicle design, and the provision and use of additional safety features, together with changes in the law (eg on the
fitting and wearing of seatbelts), will have all helped to reduce the severity of the injuries suffered in some accidents.

Road safety measures should also have reduced the levels of injuries sustained - for example, if
traffic calming schemes reduce average speeds and hence reduce the speeds at which collisions occur. In addition, the distinction between "serious"
and "slight" injuries could be affected by factors such as changes in hospitals' admission policies. For example, all else being equal, the number of "serious injury" cases would rise, and the number of "slight
injury" cases would fall, if it became standard procedure for a hospital to keep in overnight, for precautionary reasons, casualties with a particular
type of injury.

(SECTION 2.3 OF THE 1995 BULLETIN EXPLAINED THAT PART OF THE
INCREASE IN "SERIOUS INJURY" CASES IN 1994 WAS DUE TO HOSPITALS ADMITTING
MORE CHILD CASUALTIES FOR OVERNIGHT OBSERVATION).There could also be
changes in hospitals' procedures that would reduce the numbers of "serious
injury" cases. In addition, there is anecdotal evidence that changes in
procedures for assigning severity codes may affect the categorisation of
injuries. For example, different severity codes might be assigned by a
police officer who was at the scene of an accident and by a clerk who bases the code on a police officer's written description of the accident.

Therefore, it is possible that some of the changes shown in the figures for "serious injuries" and "slight injuries" may be affected by changes in
administrative practices, which may have altered the proportion of accidents which is categorised as "serious". ends

Thanks to Ian

[wedgepilot]

What's the betting UCL got a nice generous govt grant for this bit of 'research'?

It's a shame our 'mainstream' media are only interested in what's happening in big brother and the footy rather than with doing some critical journalistic research into how this propaganda was put together...

[tuscan_thunder]

so am i right in saying that if someone suffers concussion in an accident that counts as a serious injury?

IF so, then the figures are a joke. concussion can occur in minor clashes in football games, banging your head on a door etc etc.

[kurgis]

Oh dear...

looks like they've factored in the many rear-end shunts that occur at roundabouts for justification of high PiC placed speed cameras......

One example i'm looking at is the large roundabout between 2 major A roads in the Midlands, so its PiC rating in 3 yrs was 37 - bloody obvious really, there are loads and loads of slights there every year.

It was placed on criteria:

2 High PIC per km
4 Evidence of speed problem from speed survey
6 High casualties spread across a length of route rather than a specific location

So it *seems* they've used that roundabout as justification for a whole route of them. There were no KSI's at that roundabout in the 3 years.......

[PetrolTed]

Just looked at the North Wales state. They're calculated differently from the Thames Valley region.